netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 03/14] net: rtnetlink: RTM_GETSTATS: Allow filtering inside nests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20220225080422.7551b855@kicinski-fedora-PC1C0HJN.hsd1.ca.comcast.net>
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 08:04:22 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Cc:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <jiri@...dia.com>, <razor@...ckwall.org>,
        <roopa@...dia.com>, <dsahern@...il.com>, <andrew@...n.ch>,
        <mlxsw@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/14] net: rtnetlink: RTM_GETSTATS: Allow
 filtering inside nests

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 09:22:19 +0100 Petr Machata wrote:
> > Why use bitfield if we only use the .value, a u32 would do?  
> 
> The bitfield validates the mask as well, thereby making sure that
> userspace and the kernel are in sync WRT which bits are meaningful.
> 
> Specifically in case of filtering, all meaningful bits are always going
> to be the set ones. So it should be OK to just handroll the check that
> value doesn't include any bits that we don't know about, and we don't
> really need the mask.

Nothing that NLA_POLICY_MASK() can't do, right? Or do you mean that 
we can when user space requests _not_ to have a group reported?
 
> So I can redo this as u32 if you prefer.

I think that'd be better, simplest tool for the job.